July 27, 1976
Page 23958
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that after the distinguished chairman of the full committee and I finish discussing the problem that this amendment attempts to raise, I will withdraw it. but I do think it raises a rather significant area. It is rather new.
The amendment addresses what I believe to be one of the most troubling conceptual problems embedded within the Clean Air Act — the issue of background particulates.
Basically, the issue is what happens when natural causes such as windblown dust, particularly in the arid west, cause violations of the national ambient standards for particulates. The answer is unclear. Under both the present Clean Air Act, and the committee's amendments, all future sources of particulate in areas which have not achieved the ambient standards for particulate could be prohibited. For rural, lightly populated regions of the Nation, such a result could prove unacceptable.
The difficulties of implementing existing law were outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency during litigation over the West Virginia State implementation plan. One of the issues was whether high background levels of particulates had caused overly stringent emission limitations on stationary sources. EPA rejected the argument that background particulates could be discounted the same as pollution in a facility's intake water is discounted under the water act.
EPA stated in the March 4, 1976, Federal Register:
Thus, while the argument can be made that technology-based water requirements should be structured so that no one source is penalized because of naturally occurring pollutants in its intake water, the same argument cannot be made where the target in question (i.e. an ambient air quality standard) will, by its very nature, impose obligations that will vary in relation to the pollutant content of the air. That such target may be influenced by background concentrations and may thereby require substantial and perhaps burdensome, point source controls is admittedly one of the more onerous aspects of the national ambient air quality standard approach.
Nevertheless, when health and welfare is at stake and air quality must be improved to a given level, there logically is no choice but to impose pollution limits on controllable manmade sources rather than attempt to limit naturally occurring (and, usually, uncontrollable) background sources.
I have quoted at some length to stress that this is a conceptual problem with the act. The law and the amendments provide no relief in the case where nature, rather than man, violates the particulate standard.
The origins of this problem lie in the assumption that man is the principal polluter. The 1970 act was based on the reasonable premise that air pollution was the result of the careless practices of an industrialized society. As Senator MUSKIE noted during the September 21, 1970 floor debate, the 1970 act was:
A moment of truth: a time to decide whether or not we are willing to take the difficult but necessary steps to breathe new life into our fight for a better quality of life. This legislation will be a test of our commitment and a test of our faith.
In short, the 1970 act saw air pollution as a manmade phenomena subject to human solutions. Nature was the victim, not a transgressor.
During the committee's 1975 legislative hearings on the present amendments, the committee received little edification on the issue. Although the scientific basis of the particulate standard was challenged, there was virtually no discussion on the legal and economic implications of natural violations of the national standards. In fact, the only mention I was able to discover was on Dr. John Finklea's statement that background levels of photochemical oxidants come close to the standard in several regions of the country; although scientists believe that since much of this is due to the long distance transport of manmade pollutants from urban areas, these background levels may not be caused by nature at all.
I believe the distinguished Senator from Maine had a question at this point,which I am delighted to try to answer.
Mr. MUSKIE. Since neither the 1970 act, nor our recent hearings surfaced this issue, I ask the Senator what is the basis for his concern now?
Mr. DOMENICI. I might say to the distinguished Senator that obviously that particular question is well taken, and I have indicated that recent hearings have not surfaced the issue but the data base is very slight.
However, it is not totally lacking, and what I have seen greatly disturbs me. First, EPA has released some sketchy monitoring data which shows major portions of the country west of the Mississippi as exceeding the particulate standards. Second, EPA did a study in 1974 entitled "Investigation of Fugitive Dust" which studies the causes of particulate levels above the national standards in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California. Third, recent oil industry data from undeveloped Federal leases shows levels of particulates, hydrocarbon, and oxidant above the ambient standards. Fugitive particulate emissions from natural sources do appear to contribute to
these high levels of particulate; but the extent of the contribution is unknown.
I certainly think that in light of our particular interest and our mutual interest that this is a matter that should be discussed. We are not going to resolve it here today, but it should be of grave concern.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator that the committee addressed this problem on page 81 of the committee report, which notes that:
The States and EPA have recognized this problem of rural background particulates and discounted its effects where it is due to transitory, natural causes such as wind, and involves particulates generally of the substances and respirable sizes thought to affect public health.
The committee report goes on to note that we expect this policy of "administrative good sense" to continue. The limited extent of our knowledge did not permit us to address the problem in any other way.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say I am aware of that language, and he has exactly pinpointed the purpose for my amendment, that it was to legalize what I felt was in fact sound, perhaps I could call it, ad hoc administrative practice.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it would be premature in light of the record to address this issue statutorily. At this time, preliminary EPA data from the Phoenix area indicates that fully two-thirds of the total 1975 particulate emissions were generated from fugitive emissions from motor vehicles on unpaved.roads. Yet under the Senator's amendment, this source would be classified as a natural source, even though such emissions are man made. In fact, EPA's ongoing review of the ambient particulate standards includes an effort to distinguish the relative toxicity of various sizes of particles. If particles in the size range of such manmade fugitive emissions are harmful to health, their control should not be foreclosed, as I think the Senator will agree. The same may be true in agricultural areas.
My second concern is that the practical effect of his amendment could be to open up all of the State implementation plans to litigation. Any amendment involving background level of particulates would have this result.
My feeling is that we should allow the ongoing EPA investigations of this issue to continue, and that we should monitor their progress. As more emissions data and health effects knowledge becomes available, we will be in a better position to assess the magnitude of the contribution of truly natural emissions to the background particulate problem.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to our good chairman that I agree with much of what he said. I still offer several comments, however. First, his critique of my amendment's definition of "natural causes" is well taken. EPA in their 1974 report distinguished between "natural" background from windblown dust and "fugitive" emissions from unpaved roads and agriculture; manmade emissions were the overwhelming contributor.
In addition to the considerable amount of work which remains to segregate these two categories of fugitive emissions in specific regions through what certainly will be more refined techniques, the ambient particulate standard should also be refined. EPA is currently assessing various strategies to supplement the existing standard.
Second, I believe our chairman's concern about opening up existing State implementation plans is well founded. Such an action on this particular count would be unjustified until we had reliable information upon which to act.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that I share his concern. I do feel uneasy about taking such a major step with such little data.
It strikes me that the charge of the National Commission under section 315 (a) (1) clearly encompasses the subject. I believe that the combination of the discretion authorized under the present report language and the charge of the Commission offers us a better alternative than enacting this amendment into law.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman for the thoughtful dialog he has engaged in with me.
Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment. I do believe that the arguments with reference to continuing it here today and voting on it are on the side of withdrawal. I believe we have made some legislative history here.